Saturday, January 27, 2007

if Gore ran for President

"I'd give anything if Gore ran for President. Not only would we have the best Democratic candidate (sorry Mr. Kucinich), but we could close our eyes and imagine the year is 2000 and George W. Bush the nightmare never happened.

It would be like Superman turning the world backwards in Superman II: the Richard Donner Cut."

"This, agrees Luntz, is Gore's greatest draw. "Democratic voters in 2008 are not only looking to turn back the last eight years, but to erase the last eight years," he says. "If I were working for Gore, I'd message around a single word: Imagine. 'Imagine if I'd been president instead of George W. Bush. Imagine where we'd be today.' ""

"goddammit, I wish there were cameras inside this trial. FDL, with CHS & EW, are doing a great job, but I wanna see this one for myself. To watch attorney body language, witness body language, tones, inflections, scowls, hesitations, etc. (I would most especially *love* to be able to watch the jury, but even televised trials don't show juries). The written word just doesn't convey that kinda stuff, and on those kind of things, strategies, and even trials, turn.

One thing which has surprised me so far is that the prosecution witnesses seem to rather overtly *not* want to be there, and seem to be jumping at any and all chances to back-pedal as furiously as possible. Now we know that Ari Fleischer is the immunized witness, who took the 5th until offered a deal. What I'm *not* sensing from the other witnesses is that there are, at least, informal agreements in place with them. In other words, I would think that they would be more helpful if they were, in fact, in any way in fear of a later prosecution involving the outing of a CIA undercover agent.

Obviously, I'm not saying this very well, but I don't sense (goddamm lack of cameras) the eagerness to help from witnesses so far which would indicate to me that these people are in any way afraid of a future which might include a little jail time.

P.S. I still say that there's no way Cheney testifies. There was a little hint, I think during the Grossman testimony, that Walton is inclined to let cross-exam wander away. In other words, though the general rule is that cross is limited solely to those questions asked on direct, Walton may be a little loose here. *Very* bad for a Cheney testimony - and hell, I don't think he'd be coming in anyway.

But what do I know - I'm just guessing."

my quick read is that Cheney thinks that he'll testify - either that or he's very-effectively using the 'i can't comment cos there's a trial and i might have to testify' - he has an odd smirk on his face when he sez it. everyone else simply sez 'i can't comment cos there's a trial' - and cheney doesn't add anything by saying 'and i might have to testify' except remind everyone that he is deeply involved.

interesting observation about witnesses not wanting to help out too much. IANAL, so i defer to oldschool on this - other than to add that these people are professional (political, communications etc) and i'd expect them to have the discipline to be (largely) restrained (even while i acknowledge that the threat of jail time can concentrate the mind). Further, so far as we know, the people that we've seen on the witness stand so far were never under threat of prosecution (apart from maybe Grossman.)

10 comments:

"these people are professional... and I'd expect them to have the discpline to be (largely) restrained.....

yeah, that thought occurred to me too, (right after I hit 'Publish') - and might well explain it. I was never a white-collar defense kind of lawyer. My trials were always more like down-in-the-dirt fistfights. Once time, after the first day of a jury trial, I damn near got run over by a car driven by the State's main witness, who was evidently a bit miffed at me.

In other news, MSNBC is reporting that Rove and Dan Bartlett just got subpoena'd by the Libby Team. Now *that's* interesting. Team Libby is determined to make this case about who leaked - Fitz has pledged to keep it tight as to w/n Scoots lied.

Fuck it, Fitz. Let this thing go where it will. I really don't care whether Libby goes to jail - it would be so much more entertaining to watch these WH fuckers slug it out amongst themselves as to who leaked what, to who, when, and why. PLUS, all that sand that Libby supposedly threw in Fitz' eyes while originally investigating the leak - might all get washed away, without the need for more and more Grand Jury work.

Fitz - let this thing play. I wanna watch 'em eat each other. Try this thing by the seat of your pants, oldschool style, and let's see where it goes.

That's the beauty of the whole thing. It's the *defense* that's calling these guys - i.e. - Fitz will have already finished his case-in-chief against Libby.

Then, all he has to do is sit back and raise no objections as they hurl accusations at each other. (which will, if anything, most likely just make his case against Libby for the perjury and obstruction look even stronger).

Cathie Martin hurt 'em. Ari is probably gonna hurt 'em just as badly, if not worse.

So..... it might hinge on Rove. Being subpoena'd doesn't necessarily mean that he's gonna testify - it *does* mean that he must testify if Libby's lawyers decide to call him, but they don't have to. With the 5 GJ appearances under his belt and presumably having had the shit scared out of him, I'm thinking he won't weasel too awful much. I also believe that it's entirely possible that Leopold was right and Rove's already been indicted or given some type of deal. Question is whether Rove decides to turn it into a finger-pointing contest.

If that happens, maybe Cheney *does* show up to defend himself and point fingers himself. If all of those things happen - then yeah, there could be indictments. And it could quite easily come in the form of a conspiracy case.

Maybe. That would be some must-see TV (oh wait, there are no cameras, goddammit). But - could be.

Problem is, I think, that there is no advantage that I can see for Cheney, personally, to show up and testify in this one - even if he takes an intense sliming.

Hmm. I agree that it is far from a slam-dunk that Cheney will testify, but if the testimony of others pretty much lays the yellow brick road right up to his front stoop, does his unwillingness to testify save him from indictment?

Well, first things first. If he gets subpoena'd, he has to testify (or at least show up long enough to either submit to questioning - or refuse to answer based on natl security or exec privilege or general Dick-ishness).

I have no idea of the extent, if any, of the long arm of Dick Cheney as far as being able to reach out to Scoot''s attorneys to tell them that, "all things being considered, ya know, I'd rather not testify - you *do* understand right"?

Anyway - whether he testifies or not, I think you're most likely looking at another Grand Jury session. The length and difficulty of that session depends, of course, on what comes out at trial.

Unless, of course, Cheney *does* show up, admit everything (You can't handle the Truth!). But, for better or worse, he's not that insane yet; at least not in public.

And - finally, to answer your question: No - that does not save him from indictment.

I really hate to bring this up - but there is always the matter of executive privilege/immunity from prosecution to consider when discussing this.